August 20, 2018

Head scratchin'

Every time I have left an employer and moved on I have had to give up my access to company emails, systems, and internal communications. I thought nothing of it.

Why the uproar when Trump strips the security clearance from someone who is no longer in government employment? It should be routine and automatic to take away clearance after one leaves government employ. If you do not work at the CIA, why should you have access to Top Secret-type information? You no longer have the "need to know". Only people who labor in a government job expect sinecure after leaving.

If you re-enter Government Service, you can have your Security Clearance re-activated.  As a TV talking head you do not need a security clearance.  Likewise, if you are an ex-Navy Seal, you do not need a security clearance either. You can save your political grandstanding.


Ed Bonderenka said...

You make so much sense.
What planet are you from again?

Linda said...

The people with security clearances have been privy to information that is still relevant. the people with security clearances are a pool of people who can give good advice and guidance since they are senior people with knowledge.

Usually, when people leave a job, the only clearance they had was a job. They are not expected to come back, or be contacted about esoteric information.

Joe said...

They still have the knowledge about what they did. They don’t have the need to know new secrets and if they do they can be “read in” on a temp basis under law. There is no reason to keep a lifetime security clearance

Linda said...

I agree with the lack of need to know on all current events. However, they have heads full of knowledge from the past. Besides, Trump used one man who opposed him as an example and threatened others with the same fate. Security clearances should not be a political tool/weapon/reward.

Linda said...

Another thing--my minister ex always had to go back and meddle, staying so close the man who followed him could not get close to the congregation. So, moving on is a big issue with me. I know a principal who, when replaced, had her own little desk in the next principal's office so she could greet students and "help" the new principal become acclimated. I would have not had this old principal on the property. She helped set policy. I wanted to tell her to leave every time I saw her in the hall, hugging students and advising them...oh, only the doctors' and politicians' children, not the poor or special ed children.

Anonymous said...

In my years with the Army and as a contractor I had a security clearance. When I left the Army and my contractor job my clearance was suspended. The excuse that these people know something of value to the person replacing them is bullshit. Everyone that has had a security clearance signs nondisclosure agreements and acknowldge that have a clearance is not a right and can be revoked by the government at any time. This falls in the same catagory as having classified information on a non approved system. People go to jail for these kind of violations unless you happen to be a Clinton.

James Old Guy

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Joe is correct anyway, they have no need for the security clearance after leaving government service, and if an extraordinary circumstance arises, they can be read back in on a temporary basis. If they go back into government service, they can get their clearance reactivated at a level appropriate to their new job.

The security clearance, for what it's worth, has nothing to do with securing their classified knowledge after the clearance expires or is revoked. That is covered by NDAs and (for those whose clearances were through the military) by the UCMJ.

The worst lie Brennan is spreading, though, is that somehow his free speech rights were violated by his clearance being revoked. That didn't seem to stop him from running his mouth any.

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005